您的位置：首页 > 军事军事
红迪网友讨论四艘055型“驱逐舰”停泊在榆林海军基地。
Four Type 055 "destroyers" (or approximately 448 floating VLSs) resting at PLAN Yulin Naval Base [2199 x 3907]
2023-04-15
互联网
1202
收藏
举报
译文简介
网友：这张照片里的火力可能比世界上90%的海军都要强大。
正文翻译
评论翻译
Aur0ra12
more firepower in this one photo than probably 90% of all navies out there
这张照片里的火力可能比世界上90%的海军都要强大。
Ravi5ingh
That's not a hard target to pass but it is certainly interesting to think about
这不是一个难以达到的目标，但想想也很有趣。
JMHSrowing
It’s interesting how we largely ranks warships by their VLS, at least in the shortest of short hand, today, when to some degree it’s more like the ammunition storage than the number of guns when compared to ships of yesteryear
现在我们通常用垂直发射系统（VLS）的数量来评估军舰，至少在简短的表述中是这样。但实际上，与以前的舰船相比，这更像是弹药储存量而不是火炮数量。
jm_leviathan
I think the (over-)emphasis on VLS count comes mostly from the USA, where effects-based analysis meets a narrative of decline. The Ticos are going, the SSGNs are going, the sky is falling, etc.
That is not to say that it is exclusively an American thing. A lot of folks were disappointed that 055 "only" had 112 VLS cells rather than 128. So far as I can tell this is mostly an artefact of the long incumbency of Tico and Burke as setting the standard for what a large high-end surface combatant is meant to look like. In reality, 055 is a very impressive design that would remain so even if it "only" had 96 cells.
Obviously there is some merit to looking at VLS counts on both a per-ship and inventory basis, but it is just one piece of a more complex puzzle.
我认为过分强调VLS数量主要来自美国，这里的效果为导向分析与衰退叙事相结合。提康德罗加级舰艇和弹道导弹潜艇要退出舞台了，天要塌下来了等等。
这并不是说这仅是美国的事情。很多人对055只有112个VLS单元而不是128个感到失望。据我所知，这主要是因为提康德罗加级和伯克级长期以来成为大型高端水面战斗舰的标准。实际上，055是一种非常令人印象深刻的设计，即使只有96个单元，它仍然如此。
显然，在考虑单个舰艇和库存基础上看VLS数量是有一定的价值的，但这只是更复杂难题的一部分。
nigel_pow
It could be like the guns of yesteryear if the shells were already loaded in the guns, ready to fire.
如果弹药已经装好在火炮里，随时可以开火，那么就可以像以前的舰炮一样。
_Sunny--
At least for smaller ships, it's important to consider the number of VLS cells when we're discussing their capabilities since the difference of a few cells between counterparts represents a higher proportion of weapons on say a ship with 32 cells compared to a ship with 90+. Especially for multipurpose ships as opposed to dedicated air defense or ASW ships, having a higher capacity VLS means that there's more flexibility in the missile loadouts they can sail with. That's why we were all surprised when the Canadian Surface Combatant was cut down from 32 to 24 Mk. 41 cells but was still intended to carry three different types of missiles in them.
至少对于较小的舰艇来说，在讨论其能力时，考虑VLS单元的数量是很重要的，因为对于VLS单元数仅为32个的舰艇和VLS单元数为90多个的舰艇之间的差异来说，代表的是更高的武器比例。特别是对于多用途舰而言，相比于专门的防空或反潜舰艇，拥有更高的VLS容量意味着他们可以携带更多种类的导弹。这就是为什么我们都感到惊讶，当加拿大的Surface Combatant计划从32个Mk.41单元减少到24个单元，但仍打算在其中搭载三种不同类型的导弹。
drunkmuffalo
I kinda think of VLS count like scifi starship's energy shield strength, when ships shoot at each other they deplete their shields, the one with a larger shield strength wins lol.
我有点把VLS数量想象成科幻星舰的能量护盾强度，当舰船互相开火时，他们会消耗护盾，拥有更大护盾强度的舰船就会胜利。
LeVin1986
I mean, wasn't the weight of a broadside a quick n easy - but still valid - comparison tool of ships for a very long time?
我的意思是，在很长一段时间里，舰船的火力重量是一个快速而简单但仍然有效的比较工具，对吧？
nigel_pow
I see this as how the US Navy was growing each year when the Royal Navy was the premier naval power. Closing the gap little by little.
我认为这就像英国皇家海军是当时的主要海军力量时，美国海军每年都在壮大，逐渐缩小差距。
jjed97
Babe wake up new naval arms race just dropped.
醒醒，新的海军军备竞赛刚刚开始。
Bakonnn1
Remember how many Fletchers and Essex and Midways they pumped out in 4 years? Guess war time can make a difference.
你们还记得他们在四年内生产了多少船吗？好像只有战争时期才能做到这个量。
Somebodyonearth363
I feel the main advantage usn has now is they have a large amount of Allies, the Brits never had nearly as many Allies as the USN with nato has currently. The Brits in ww2 had to fight 3 fronts. 1. Protection of the home island against Germany 2. Mediterranean against the Italians 3. Attempting to protect the Asian colonies. The Brits for most of the 1941-42 era had to fight these 3 fronts without much support after France collapsing and the USN still trying to get their crap together, resulting in over extension.
Modern USN has nato on it’s side to hold Russia and send a few ships to the pacific, as well as Asian Allie’s of Japan and South Korea giving them a huge advantage compared to ww2 Britain.
-my best attempt to rewrite my original reply with the same points, miss clicked and delete original :( sorry.
我感觉现在美国海军的主要优势在于他们有很多盟友。英国在二战时没有像现在美国海军在北约中那么多的盟友。英国在二战时需要同时面对三个前线。在德国入侵威胁本土、在地中海打击意大利和保护亚洲殖民地三个前线上，英国在1941-42年间没有得到太多的支持，他们的力量被过度分散了。
1II1I1I1I1I1I111I1I1
The gap is already pretty much closed. Stuff like the 055 would be more accurately characterized as pulling ahead.
现在的差距已经几乎缩小了。055这种船只应该说是更领先了。
原文地址：https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/11jol96/four_type_055_destroyers_or_approximately_448/
more firepower in this one photo than probably 90% of all navies out there
这张照片里的火力可能比世界上90%的海军都要强大。
Ravi5ingh
That's not a hard target to pass but it is certainly interesting to think about
这不是一个难以达到的目标，但想想也很有趣。
JMHSrowing
It’s interesting how we largely ranks warships by their VLS, at least in the shortest of short hand, today, when to some degree it’s more like the ammunition storage than the number of guns when compared to ships of yesteryear
现在我们通常用垂直发射系统（VLS）的数量来评估军舰，至少在简短的表述中是这样。但实际上，与以前的舰船相比，这更像是弹药储存量而不是火炮数量。
jm_leviathan
I think the (over-)emphasis on VLS count comes mostly from the USA, where effects-based analysis meets a narrative of decline. The Ticos are going, the SSGNs are going, the sky is falling, etc.
That is not to say that it is exclusively an American thing. A lot of folks were disappointed that 055 "only" had 112 VLS cells rather than 128. So far as I can tell this is mostly an artefact of the long incumbency of Tico and Burke as setting the standard for what a large high-end surface combatant is meant to look like. In reality, 055 is a very impressive design that would remain so even if it "only" had 96 cells.
Obviously there is some merit to looking at VLS counts on both a per-ship and inventory basis, but it is just one piece of a more complex puzzle.
我认为过分强调VLS数量主要来自美国，这里的效果为导向分析与衰退叙事相结合。提康德罗加级舰艇和弹道导弹潜艇要退出舞台了，天要塌下来了等等。
这并不是说这仅是美国的事情。很多人对055只有112个VLS单元而不是128个感到失望。据我所知，这主要是因为提康德罗加级和伯克级长期以来成为大型高端水面战斗舰的标准。实际上，055是一种非常令人印象深刻的设计，即使只有96个单元，它仍然如此。
显然，在考虑单个舰艇和库存基础上看VLS数量是有一定的价值的，但这只是更复杂难题的一部分。
nigel_pow
It could be like the guns of yesteryear if the shells were already loaded in the guns, ready to fire.
如果弹药已经装好在火炮里，随时可以开火，那么就可以像以前的舰炮一样。
_Sunny--
At least for smaller ships, it's important to consider the number of VLS cells when we're discussing their capabilities since the difference of a few cells between counterparts represents a higher proportion of weapons on say a ship with 32 cells compared to a ship with 90+. Especially for multipurpose ships as opposed to dedicated air defense or ASW ships, having a higher capacity VLS means that there's more flexibility in the missile loadouts they can sail with. That's why we were all surprised when the Canadian Surface Combatant was cut down from 32 to 24 Mk. 41 cells but was still intended to carry three different types of missiles in them.
至少对于较小的舰艇来说，在讨论其能力时，考虑VLS单元的数量是很重要的，因为对于VLS单元数仅为32个的舰艇和VLS单元数为90多个的舰艇之间的差异来说，代表的是更高的武器比例。特别是对于多用途舰而言，相比于专门的防空或反潜舰艇，拥有更高的VLS容量意味着他们可以携带更多种类的导弹。这就是为什么我们都感到惊讶，当加拿大的Surface Combatant计划从32个Mk.41单元减少到24个单元，但仍打算在其中搭载三种不同类型的导弹。
drunkmuffalo
I kinda think of VLS count like scifi starship's energy shield strength, when ships shoot at each other they deplete their shields, the one with a larger shield strength wins lol.
我有点把VLS数量想象成科幻星舰的能量护盾强度，当舰船互相开火时，他们会消耗护盾，拥有更大护盾强度的舰船就会胜利。
LeVin1986
I mean, wasn't the weight of a broadside a quick n easy - but still valid - comparison tool of ships for a very long time?
我的意思是，在很长一段时间里，舰船的火力重量是一个快速而简单但仍然有效的比较工具，对吧？
nigel_pow
I see this as how the US Navy was growing each year when the Royal Navy was the premier naval power. Closing the gap little by little.
我认为这就像英国皇家海军是当时的主要海军力量时，美国海军每年都在壮大，逐渐缩小差距。
jjed97
Babe wake up new naval arms race just dropped.
醒醒，新的海军军备竞赛刚刚开始。
Bakonnn1
Remember how many Fletchers and Essex and Midways they pumped out in 4 years? Guess war time can make a difference.
你们还记得他们在四年内生产了多少船吗？好像只有战争时期才能做到这个量。
Somebodyonearth363
I feel the main advantage usn has now is they have a large amount of Allies, the Brits never had nearly as many Allies as the USN with nato has currently. The Brits in ww2 had to fight 3 fronts. 1. Protection of the home island against Germany 2. Mediterranean against the Italians 3. Attempting to protect the Asian colonies. The Brits for most of the 1941-42 era had to fight these 3 fronts without much support after France collapsing and the USN still trying to get their crap together, resulting in over extension.
Modern USN has nato on it’s side to hold Russia and send a few ships to the pacific, as well as Asian Allie’s of Japan and South Korea giving them a huge advantage compared to ww2 Britain.
-my best attempt to rewrite my original reply with the same points, miss clicked and delete original :( sorry.
我感觉现在美国海军的主要优势在于他们有很多盟友。英国在二战时没有像现在美国海军在北约中那么多的盟友。英国在二战时需要同时面对三个前线。在德国入侵威胁本土、在地中海打击意大利和保护亚洲殖民地三个前线上，英国在1941-42年间没有得到太多的支持，他们的力量被过度分散了。
1II1I1I1I1I1I111I1I1
The gap is already pretty much closed. Stuff like the 055 would be more accurately characterized as pulling ahead.
现在的差距已经几乎缩小了。055这种船只应该说是更领先了。
